-
Troy's Avatar Thread...
You can't put that kind of Peanut Butter on the trap and not expect a mouse to stick his head in to git it!!!! Gives us the 411 bro!!!!
Worf
-
Oh, very well. Here's why I'm going to go out of my way to avoid Avatar:
It's well documented that Cameron almost drowned several of his actors and crew filming The Abyss. What was most shocking was his lack of contrition or remorse about it. I remember reading an interview with an extremely pissed off Ed Harris about it. The crew boycotted the set and there were lawsuits. It was a real mess.
Cameron is the worst kind of Hollywood hack director. He's always been very willing to crush and ruin the career of anyone in the way. Again, very well documented if you care to look for it. Where most great directors develop a rapport with crews and actors, using them over and over again on all their productions, Cameron goes thru people like kleenex. Nobody wants to work with the guy twice.
Lets look at his movies. Does anyone even care that The Abyss exists at this point? Glacial pace and virtually no payoff at the end of almost 3 hours. What a bloated stiff. Aliens was the best thing he ever did hands down, but when you get down to it, this was nothing more than a coke and popcorn, bug-hunt, sci-fi flick. There's really nothing else there. The Terminator movies started out as a quicky low-budget action hack-job that looks embarrassingly dated now. And the series devolved into bloated mess with bigger budgets, more CGI and explosions with even less character or logic driving the story. Titanic was excessive, cheesy and overwrought in virtually every way. Really, a terrible movie who's CGI effects already look dated (the problem with every CGI-driven film, but that's another post). Far as I'm concerned, winning the best picture oscar® is usually a bad thing. The bad movie, the one that will be embarrassing when you look back at it 10 years later, almost always wins.
This Avatar flick looks like no exception to his parade of infantile crap. I can't tell you the last time I've seen such an overhyped advertising campaign! Man, you cannot avoid hearing about how "this movie will change moviegoing, forever!" There's been an all out blitz in every form of media and even a 60 Minutes story for old people. It's been my experience that the more a movie is advertised, the more it's going to suck. If that's true, then Avatar will be a monumental turd. Face it, any movie where the ad campaign uses an ancient cornball line like "We're not in Kansas anymore" has got to be written for a 9 year olds level of understanding. I bet someone says "Lock and Load" at some point too. Pathetic. Inexcusable in a movie hails itself as a total industry changer.
And let me get this straight, the lead character has lost his legs in battle and you see him in a wheel chair and they tell him he can walk again by putting his consciousness in this alien body they made from alien DNA. Well if they can do that, why can't they just cook up some new human legs for him from his own DNA? What an incredibly STUPID idea on such a basic, fundamental level! Typical, half-baked Cameron BS. I can hear the back room talk: "We'll just dazzle 'em with shiny stuff and they'll forget that it doesn't make any sense."
Does Roger Dean get an art direction credit? So much of the look of this movie is a outright rip off of many of RD's paintings. I googled "Roger Dean Avatar" and while many reviewers echo my sentiments, Cameron has been entirely silent on the subject. I just looked at the entire on-screen-credit-list at imdb.com and Dean's name is nowhere, not even the special thanks list. Just another example of the typical Cameron business ethic.
Other than that I can't wait to see it . . .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
And let me get this straight, the lead character has lost his legs in battle and you see him in a wheel chair and they tell him he can walk again by putting his consciousness in this alien body they made from alien DNA. Well if they can do that, why can't they just cook up some new human legs for him from his own DNA? What an incredibly STUPID idea on such a basic, fundamental level! Typical, half-baked Cameron BS. I can hear the back room talk: "We'll just dazzle 'em with shiny stuff and they'll forget that it doesn't make any sense."
Isn't that true of many hollywood flicks though? This use of stupid and unbelievable premises is not unique. Hubby and I have made a game of this when we rent movies. One of us will put up our hand and we'll pause the movie while we ask something like...but if he can walk on water, why does he need a lifejacket? (Sorry, I can't think of a specific example at the moment, although I know there's lots of them).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
Isn't that true of many hollywood flicks though?
Sure, but why does Cameron get a pass when these gratuitous flaws appear in every production he's involved with?
Most people are more forgiving about these things than I am, but I suppose that's part of why I don't like most blockbuster-type films.
-
Cameron may be a class-A jerk, but it won't stop millions of people from seeing it. It's almost as if people are clamoring for another Titanic-scale movie to hang their hopes on. Personally I only needed to see Titanic once, and probably would fall asleep the second time, but I still saw it. Same with Terminator, Abyss, and Aliens.
I suppose there are quite a few directors who are jerks (Verhoeven, Gibson, etc.), but people still go see their movies. Anyhow, who ever said that geniuses are fun folks to hang out with? As most of you know, I do draw the line somewhere (Tarentino), but as long as the subject is not too revolting, I'll give it a look-see. With Avatar, I'm just curious to see what all the hoopla's about. I probably won't see a fascinating LOTR-like story line with in-depth Babel-like character development, but I'm not really expecting it - just like I didn't expect it when I saw any of his other movies, nor did I expect it with Batman, Hancock, or just about anything Bruce Willis has been in.
Now I also draw the line at morbid stupidity, the kind of rehash that Disney puts out every half year. I mean Grimm and Andersen would be spinning in their graves if they saw how their stories were pared-down to the lowest common denominator, were over-sexualized, and infused with a level of unrealistic action and effects that completely guts the tales from any historic or philosophic message. Vampire movies are also up there with the same tired story line every time, although I am still guilty of seeing a few. But at least with Cameron, I'm fairly safe to know that there will at least be a little more to stimulate my gray matter than the rest of the over hyped and CGI'ed Hollywood drivel that passes for entertainment these days (think Transformers and GI Joe)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
Isn't that true of many hollywood flicks though? This use of stupid and unbelievable premises is not unique. Hubby and I have made a game of this when we rent movies. One of us will put up our hand and we'll pause the movie while we ask something like...but if he can walk on water, why does he need a lifejacket? (Sorry, I can't think of a specific example at the moment, although I know there's lots of them).
Here's a basic one. "If there is no air in space, how come I can hear that spaceship fly by?" Pick a Sci-fi movie.
-
That's for the benefit of the viewers only, lol.
-
I thought this was going to be about the bloodshot eyeball.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Anyhow, who ever said that geniuses are fun folks to hang out with?
That's so true! I can't tell you how many people I've had tell me that I'm just no fun to hang out with.
-
As a former victim of some of your genius mania, I cannot disagree.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
That's so true! I can't tell you how many people I've had tell me that I'm just no fun to hang out with.
Ba-dum-bump.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Cameron may be a class-A jerk, but it won't stop millions of people from seeing it. It's almost as if people are clamoring for another Titanic-scale movie to hang their hopes on.
No argument from me. People will flock to it because they are told to. Allow me the ability to dream that people would be smarter. (I'll admit, I'm sure I'll see it someday on cable or netflix)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
I suppose there are quite a few directors who are jerks (Verhoeven, Gibson, etc.), but people still go see their movies.
There are different levels of jerkitude. Stanley Kubick gave Shelley Duvall a nervous breakdown during The Shining to get that freaked out 3rd act from her. Cameron almost allowed cast and crew members to die and insisted filming continue, even with most of the crew walking off the set. There's a big difference between making Shelley Duvall cry and being cavalier with people's lives, right? Cameron is a menace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
But at least with Cameron, I'm fairly safe to know that there will at least be a little more to stimulate my gray matter than the rest of the over hyped and CGI'ed Hollywood drivel that passes for entertainment these days (think Transformers and GI Joe)
You know, it's just really sad that the most intellectually stimulating movie we can see is a Jim Cameron movie. Paying to see it on first run sends the message to Hollywood that this is what you want to see. Vote with your wallet. Stay home and rent Idiocracy instead.
-
No argument from me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
You know, it's just really sad that the most intellectually stimulating movie we can see is a Jim Cameron movie.
And I will not be seeing it...
...this weekend. But I can't really come back to work in January w/o having seen it. Besides, someone is sure to spoil the plot (if there is one) for me by that time.
-
Something I always do it check out a flick at Metacritic. After all why should I trust a few wiseguys like around here when I can go instead and get the rating a couple of dozen over-paid professional critics.
Anyway, not many review in so far on Avatar, but as at this moment its got 89/100. Terminator, e.g, got 84. Their server broke so I couldn't get Alien, which, just a bug flick or not, was great; (contrast Star Ship Troopers which was pure trash).
I guess Troy would say there's no accouting for these things. Me too, I guess, when something as silly and puerile as Ratatouille gets a Metacritic score of 96.
-
Hey, Starship Troopers was pretty funny and Rat. wasn't so bad either. Canadian movie critics - who let them in here?
-
I rarely go to the theatre. My wife occasionally. Of course, I am first in line for any big budget kung fu. Ninja Assassin, you know it!! Basically I am saying that I hardly have my finger on the pulse of cinema.
The thing is Troy, I just can't see this problem being unique to James Cameron. Entertainment is possibly the toughest biz to make it in. NO ONE makes it by being a consomate nice guy. Maybe he should lighten up on the artists a bit, but I'm sure there's a long line of jerks just like him. From what I can tell, Hollywood is predicated on jerkiness.
Troy, come over to the Kung Fu side. The water's warm and we're all smoking cigars!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Hey, Starship Troopers was pretty funny ...
That's the problem: it wasn't supposed to be funny.
-
Yeah I hear he's not the easiest guy to work with. His Terminators & Alien 2 are part of my favourite films though
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
That's the problem: it wasn't supposed to be funny.
Actually it WAS supposed to be funny.
From Wikipedia:
The film included visual allusions to propaganda films, such as Why We Fight, Triumph of the Will, The Battleship Potemkin, and wartime news broadcasts. However, this satire was embedded in slickly produced action sequences with clever special effects.
In the DVD audio commentary for the film, director Paul Verhoeven states unambiguously that the movie's message is "War makes fascists of us all", and that he sees the movie as a satire of American militarism. (The dress uniforms bear a distinct resemblance to those worn by members of the Third Reich.) On the same commentary, screenwriter Ed Neumeier (who had previously worked with Verhoeven on RoboCop) broadly concurs, although he sees the satire as applying to the whole of human history, rather than solely to the United States. Since the filmmakers did not make these statements at the time of the film's release, viewers have interpreted it variously: as a satire, as a celebration of fascism, or as a simple action film.
Watch it again as a comedy and you'll see that it's really a tart little movie.
-
I thought this was going to be about the bloodshot eyeball.[/QUOTE]
Me too.
Originally Posted by nightflier
Anyhow, who ever said that geniuses are fun folks to hang out with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallGirl
That's so true! I can't tell you how many people I've had tell me that I'm just no fun to hang out with.
I don't know about that. I found you to be fun...lot's of fun...almost mindnumbingly so :23:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Actually it WAS supposed to be funny.
Right, mostly satire, the actors were encouraged to act deathly serious, while references to WW2 propaganda films and wartime radio and movie news serials were made every act.
Amazing how two of Verhoven's movies (Robocop and Starship Troopers) turned out to be rather prophetic regarding their depictions of future culture...well, both amazing and sad that they did.
As for Avatar, I have no idea why I'm supposed to know what this story is...if someone had pitched me the name avatar months ago I mighta said it was the name of some sort of Japanese Anime'. Was this this one of those "graphic novels" (comic books) or is it just a screenplay?
*anime - french word meaning: "I'm an adult watching cartoons instead of dating"
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Actually it WAS supposed to be funny.
From Wikipedia:
The film included visual allusions to propaganda films, such as Why We Fight, Triumph of the Will, The Battleship Potemkin, and wartime news broadcasts. However, this satire was embedded in slickly produced action sequences with clever special effects.
In the DVD audio commentary for the film, director Paul Verhoeven states unambiguously that the movie's message is "War makes fascists of us all", and that he sees the movie as a satire of American militarism. (The dress uniforms bear a distinct resemblance to those worn by members of the Third Reich.) On the same commentary, screenwriter Ed Neumeier (who had previously worked with Verhoeven on RoboCop) broadly concurs, although he sees the satire as applying to the whole of human history, rather than solely to the United States. Since the filmmakers did not make these statements at the time of the film's release, viewers have interpreted it variously: as a satire, as a celebration of fascism, or as a simple action film.
Watch it again as a comedy and you'll see that it's really a tart little movie.
Ah! Thanks for that education, Troy.
Not that all those "tributes" eluded me, but such allusions don't necessarily make a film funny, nor is satire invariably funny, and "funny" is what we were talking about in this thread. In any case the film was a flop overall other than that it did capture Heinlein's own crypto-fascist tendancies.
"War makes fascists of us all." Or is it simply that fascists make war?
Critics in general should take this under advisal: because a work have a lot of erudite allusions and tributes to the preceding literature doesn't make it great, (never mind funny).
-
You guys miss the point. Many of todays movies are geared to the Teen and Twenty Something crowd, most of who don't really care about a movie that makes some social comment or makes them think. This age group just wants entertainment. I tend to lump movies into 2 categories 1)mindless entertainment-Star Trek, Avatar etc.
2) movies that get me involved in the story and make me think
Movies are just a form of fantasy entertainment where anything goes. Its always been that way dating back to silent movies.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackraven
You guys miss the point. Many of todays movies are geared to the Teen and Twenty Something crowd, most of who don't really care about a movie that makes some social comment or makes them think. This age group just wants entertainment. I tend to lump movies into 2 categories 1)mindless entertainment-Star Trek, Avatar etc.
2) movies that get me involved in the story and make me think
Movies are just a form of fantasy entertainment where anything goes. Its always been that way dating back to silent movies.
I want to be entertained first and foremost. If a film makes me think, so much the better -- usually: but there are a few things I'd rather not think about.
One thing I'd rather not think about is the cleverness of the script writers and director. Another is literary or cinematic satire, (as distinct from political, social, etc. satire). I leave these things to the professional critics and scholars of the discipline.
-
When two tribes go to war....
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackraven
Movies are just a form of fantasy entertainment where anything goes. Its always been that way dating back to silent movies.
Then there are documentaries like The Inconvenient Truth, Food Inc. and Taxi to the Dark Side. Where do they fall?
Feanor,
Quite simply, fascists make war. It is the one activity that most closely matches their beliefs.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
The thing is Troy, I just can't see this problem being unique to James Cameron. Entertainment is possibly the toughest biz to make it in. NO ONE makes it by being a consomate nice guy. Maybe he should lighten up on the artists a bit, but I'm sure there's a long line of jerks just like him. From what I can tell, Hollywood is predicated on jerkiness.
I agree with this, but I do not think it is unique to directors either. Actors are a pretty pampered bunch of folks. They get a VERY high salary, and they are expected to work hard for that high salary. Some of them are quite lazy, and you literally have to beat, scare or threaten the crap out of them to give you a good performance. Cameron movies are tough on actors because of both the physical and mental demands of the script. If an actor cannot cut it, don't audition for the part. Alfred Hitchcock was also very difficult to work with, but much of his work is considered classic.
I personally would love to work with Cameron. He is no tougher to work for than Tim Burton (at least from a post production view), and I really loved working with Burton on the remix of Nightmare.
As many Hollywood jerks that are in Hollywood, there are many really nice cool folks as well. Hollywood is no different than society as a whole.
-
Sounds right Terrence. Back to the OP, you are entitled to feel and do as you please. I just don't see why you feel so strongly to boycott this dude because he's mean. Cameron has had the misfortune of his activities being broadcast for the world to know.
I wonder though, how many corporate based products or services have you used in the last while? Do you suppose the executives behind them are all tip top fellows?
It could be a tough proposition boycotting based on this type of thing...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Then there are documentaries like The Inconvenient Truth, Food Inc. and Taxi to the Dark Side. Where do they fall?
Feanor,
Quite simply, fascists make war. It is the one activity that most closely matches their beliefs.
I don't consider a documentary in the same class as a movie. I do watch documentaries but I usually rent them. Most of the time when I watch a movie its because I want to escape from reality. My life is much too busy and chaotic to have to think too much while watching a movie. If I want to be taught something, I would rather read a non fiction book!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Sounds right Terrence. Back to the OP, you are entitled to feel and do as you please. I just don't see why you feel so strongly to boycott this dude because he's mean. Cameron has had the misfortune of his activities being broadcast for the world to know.
I wonder though, how many corporate based products or services have you used in the last while? Do you suppose the executives behind them are all tip top fellows?
It could be a tough proposition boycotting based on this type of thing...
Fair enough.
I've fallen on my sword over my own personal baggage for this enough already. A few more comments and I'm out.
There's always been something about Cameron and his . . . tone . . . that gets under my skin. He comes across as smug and condescending in his public appearances. I know guys that talk just like that and they are douchebags to the core. That combined with the inordinate amount of bad stories about him (way more than any other director I can think of) and stories about how difficult, over-budget and disorganized his shoots are, etc., I dunno, the guy just makes my skin crawl. Yeah, lots of directors have the rep of being a tyrant, but Cameron's the poster-child for it.
I've seen firsthand that in order to rise in the corporate world, the more ruthless you have to be. So, are you saying that it's ok to approve of this guy's behavior because . . . well, because everyone else is doing it anyway? Sorry man, that slope is way too slippery for me.
Make no mistake. I'm not telling anyone to boycott it, I'm just sayin' I'm not gonna pay to see it. Cameron hasn't made a good movie since 1986. 23 years, and now this is being hailed as so visionary and ground-breaking, yet it looks like it's just "Dances with Wolves with tall Smurfs" in front of an animated Roger Dean painting. I've found the hype for this movie loaded with self-aggrandizement and totally overbearing–and I'm sure it's only made worse for me because it's coming from Cameron.
It's my cross to bear.
-
Sorry, to point this out, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
I'm not gonna pay to see it. Cameron hasn't made a good movie since 1986. 23 years, and now this is being hailed as so visionary and ground-breaking, yet it looks like it's just "Dances with Wolves with tall Smurfs" in front of an animated Roger Dean painting. I've found the hype for this movie loaded with self-aggrandizement and totally overbearing–and I'm sure it's only made worse for me because it's coming from Cameron.
... you haven't actually seen it and you are pre-judging it. Last time I took this position about a director who I also happen to find despicable, you certainly weren't shy about rubbing my face in the fact I hadn't seen the movie (Inglorious Basterds) and was not going to see it either - I still haven't. I'm not trying to pick a fight over this, but I dare say what comes around....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
... you haven't actually seen it and you are pre-judging it. Last time I took this position about a director who I also happen to find despicable, you certainly weren't shy about rubbing my face in the fact I hadn't seen the movie (Inglorious Basterds) and was not going to see it either - I still haven't. I'm not trying to pick a fight over this, but I dare say what comes around....
Well, that's why I'm soft-pedaling here (something you never did in the IB thread)!
I have seen several long previews and interviews with Cameron as well as a making-of short film. For not having seen it, I know more about it that I'd like, frankly.
But you're right. I need to see it before I go off on it any further.
-
Fair enough.
And if it's a consolation, I'm still not going to see it this weekend.
-
This movie looks like Halo -v- Ferngully. Olias Of Sunhillow with guns. I'm not saying I won't get dragged into seeing it - its right up my 14yr old son's alley (the target audience). Otherwise, I'm not chomping at the bit. I do think the studio hype machine is way over the top with its "changing moviegoing forever" or whatever. I guess they have to make outrageous claims at the end of a year chock full of forgetable big buget movies where CGI effects dominate while story and acting are optional.
-
Welp...
Sugi, my friend in the Movie Biz (www.spectrum8.com) sez that the reason they're pushing the "revolutionary" aspects of htis film so hard is because it's a "new" brand of 3D vision that's supposed to be "light years" ahead of the crap in the 50's and 60's. I'm even more depressed now because, due to wounds from military service, I don't have bi-nocular vision, I can see out of only one eye at a time. Therefore I don't get the 3D effect, it only looks like an ordinary movie to me... so I guess that's some caish I'll be a saving this month.
Worf
-
Well, although Troy has stated some good reasons not to support this film...curiousity killed the cat...and I'm curious, so kill me. I want to see this. Even if the storyline sucks it looks like visual eye candy to me. How can I not want to see a movie filled with Roger Dean-like space-scapes (can't really call them landscapes)? Perhaps Dean was ripped off, perhaps not. Not having seen the movie, I can't make that judgement.
I'm interested. I don't know if I'll get to see it in the theatre since time is hard to come by and I just hate crowded theatres and overpriced, over-salted popcorn. So maybe we'll wait for the DVD. But one way or another, I'll probably see it.
-
It's the first movie in a long time that allowed me to completely shut my brain off and simply escape into another world. The 3D was fantastic and I think it's the best CGI yet.
-
Anyone else see it yet? Any other thoughts? For those of us experiencing Avatar vicariously, that is....
-
I'll be seeing it after xmas at our local Imax theater. I would say that the tech in the movie would absolutely need an Imax theater to work correctly so if your seeing it at a regular theater, or waiting for the DVD/BlueRay to come out your not going to be seeing the movie as the director intended.
I've seen "Up!" in 3-D and while it was quite remarkable (both as a film AND the 3-D effects), the tech is not fully up to fast movement in 3-D. There's noticable judder when fast action takes place. Probably because of the split frame rate. If they can answer that problem then I'm all for 3-D taking over the theaters.
-
I saw it this evening (in 3D). Outstanding; a must see.
The thing is, Troy's criticisms are pretty much valid. The thing is one cliché after another. Doesn't matter though: the movie simply transcends these quibbles.
Definitely see it in 3D. No, the effect isn't really life-like, but it is used powerfully and it's absolutely the way the director intended that the movie should be seen.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
I saw it this evening (in 3D). Outstanding; a must see.
Ditto. Saw it yesterday in IMAX. It was quite a ride!
rw
|